The more important question is whether the revised offer represents a genuine attempt to improve the pay and conditions of Victoria’s education workforce.
Are we at a point now where we need to ask whether some of the debate surrounding the revised offer has blurred the distinction between what can realistically be achieved through enterprise bargaining and what ultimately sits within broader government policy?
Take class sizes as an example.
Few would argue against smaller classes. Research, teachers and school leaders have long recognised the benefits of reducing class sizes where possible. It’s also understandable why the AEU continues to advocate for staged reductions. Achieving that outcome, however, requires much more than an industrial agreement. It depends on growing the teaching workforce, securing long-term funding commitments and sustained government investment over many years. These are significant structural reforms that extend well beyond a single round of bargaining.
The same applies to school funding.
Calls to fully fund Victorian public schools deserve broad public support. However, it can legitimately be argued that full funding under the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement (the so-called Gonski reforms), is fundamentally a public policy and budget decision, not an enterprise bargaining agreement issue.
It’s important to distinguish between what an enterprise agreement is designed to do and what requires broader government policy and investment. Enterprise bargaining is the process through which employees, represented by their union, negotiate improvements to pay and working conditions. It is not a mechanism for delivering large-scale education reforms that rely on workforce growth, long-term funding and government policy decisions.
That doesn’t diminish the importance of advocating for reduced class sizes or full funding. It simply recognises that different mechanisms exist for achieving different outcomes.
The revised offer itself reflects this distinction.
Whilst it may not address every workload concern, it includes changes to consultation, flexibility and professional autonomy. It also provides greater clarity around work undertaken outside face-to-face teaching by more clearly defining how annual hours are allocated across principal-directed meetings, teacher-directed professional judgement and other professional responsibilities.
Whether these changes go far enough is ultimately a matter for members to decide.
What they do represent are negotiated outcomes reached through the enterprise bargaining process on issues raised throughout the negotiations.
The same principle applies to Education Support staff.
The discussion around paid lunch breaks, role descriptions and classification structures reflects important issues, particularly given the diversity of Education Support roles across Victorian schools. Unlike teachers, Education Support staff perform a wide range of roles, from business managers and administration staff to integration aides and other specialist support positions. The current classification structure was originally developed to recognise that diversity.
There is a strong case for continuing discussions about how these roles are described, classified and recognised. Many of these issues are complex and may require ongoing collaboration between the Department and the Union beyond the enterprise bargaining process. As with teachers, members will ultimately need to consider whether the outcomes included in the revised offer appropriately address the matters that can reasonably be resolved through enterprise bargaining.
Perhaps the most significant issue emerging from recent events isn’t the revised offer itself but what the extraordinarily close recent member vote tells us about the profession and what can be learnt from the shift in voting behaviour?
According to publicly reported figures, in June, 42.3 per cent of members voted to accept the in-principle agreement, which was also publicly endorsed by the AEU leadership Council, while 57.5 per cent voted to reject it.
Following further negotiations and a revised offer, support for acceptance increased to 48.82 per cent in July and opposition fell from 57.5 per cent to 51.18 per cent.
These figures reflect a noticeable shift in member sentiment between the two ballots.
They suggest that the revised offer changed the views of a significant number of members, even though a majority ultimately remained opposed. Understanding what influenced both groups may provide valuable insights for future negotiations.
This debate extends beyond one enterprise agreement.
Few would dispute that Victorian educators deserve better pay and conditions. The challenge is determining which improvements represent meaningful progress today while continuing to advocate for broader reform tomorrow. That is the balance at the heart of every enterprise bargaining negotiation.
Ultimately, members will hold different views about whether the revised offer struck the right balance.
What is clear, is that the issues that remain will continue to shape future advocacy, negotiations and government policy.
That should be seen as a positive because everyone involved shares the same goal of building a stronger public education system that better supports students and the professionals who make it possible.
